Honestly your reasoning that Griffith wished to give her what she wanted is preposterous to me. He did that for himself.

*wonders what part of "mostly to reestablish his self-image of being needed and desirable with someone he hoped might still be attracted to him that way" you took to not mean he did it for himself*Yep, he did it for himself, and that's how he gets people to do what he wants: by giving them what he thinks they want.

His dream was always his top priority. Always. When his heart did betray him, it was because he couldn't be as emotionless as he wanted to, or doubted himself, but his dream remained his ultimate goal all along.

Yep, that's what I said. Well, I guess I specified that he wanted his dream to remain his ultimate goal all along, and constantly fought back anything inside him that didn't agree.

And I don't think Griffith identified himself with the dream itself. Nothing of the sort is hinted at in the story. It's just his unique goal in life, one that obsesses him. I think that's enough as it is. I don't quite make sense of your idea that he didn't want to be a person.

By "person" I mean he doesn't want to have weaknesses, vulnerabilities, distractions, or be sway-able in any way. His ideal for himself is to be completely dedicated to his dream.

I don't know what to tell you; it just doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think it has any solid ground. But if you don't like that interpretation anyway, why stick to it?

Emotions don't always make sense, that's why they make us do irrational things. I "stick to" that interpretation because I don't let what I "like" blind me to what's actually happening. Also, because I realize that no matter how much Griffith's ideal version of himself doesn't have weaknesses, his human self does, and they are plainly evident in that scene. If this doesn't make sense to you, that's fine by me. As I said before, there's room for many interpretations and the story will mean different things to different people. That is the power of myth, and I believe Berserk's story is timeless enough to be called a myth.

I'm not sure what you mean by "reconcile", but you're taking things out of context. The whole tale Griffith spinned about Guts comes from the time he defeated him in volume 8. ... He was obsessed by Guts then for the simple reason that his dream was, for all intents and purposes, over. And he felt it was Guts' fault. He says so himself, and not that Guts is "more important" than his dream. Like Casca would later explain at the waterfall, Griffith was just a man, and he had to rely on others to achieve such a grand dream. He couldn't succeed all by himself. And Guts being as exceptional as he is, Griffith relied on him (to Casca's chagrin, as she wanted to fill that role).

Umm... riiight, because when he's thinking "but why is it when it comes to him, I always lose my composure?" with a picture of the Zodd battle for a backdrop, he totally means the Vol 8 incident. I would highly suggest re-reading Vol 10 "Infiltrating Windham (1)" before you say that. Then again, if you can read the waterfall scene and not grasp that Casca wanted to be more than just a military asset to Griffith, and that Guts stole both her role as closest confidant and sword, I don't know what to tell you. And that's what it comes down to, I guess. If you think I'm taking every internal monologue Griffith ever had out of context, we don't have much to discuss.

It’s not my style to force people to see things my way. The fact is, you view Berserk through an entirely different bias than I do. For me to try to argue with it, I’d have to go over each chapter one by one which, as you say about my essay, would be a waste of my time. Because, honestly, I don’t care if you have a different perspective on things than I do. I don’t want you to have the same perspective as I do. If everybody came away from Berserk feeling the same and thinking the same, it wouldn’t be a very good/interesting story. I hope whoever reads this thread later finds value in both our arguments and forms their own interpretation.

(And, again, thanks to this thread I have found things to tweak in my essay, particularly translations, and I greatly appreciate that.)

Well yeah, it says you're avoiding the question. It doesn't matter what you said elsewhere if what I quoted is indeed from you, unless you contradict yourself in your essay. I don't need to read everything to comment on one paragraph. If that's what you want though, I can point out more stuff, no problem. See at the end of my post.

*wonders what part of "mostly to reestablish his self-image of being needed and desirable with someone he hoped might still be attracted to him that way" you took to not mean he did it for himself*Yep, he did it for himself, and that's how he gets people to do what he wants: by giving them what he thinks they want.

Hahaha, if that isn't great. You refute what I pointed out in your post by conveniently not quoting the concerned part in your sentence, then you state it again. The truth is he didn't do it for her. Like, not at all. She was saying "no" and he didn't care, and he'd never bothered to give Casca what she wanted before, when she wanted to be his woman or his "sword". It was purely selfish. Your rationale that he did things because he thought others wanted him to has no basis in the story. Did he try to prevent Guts from leaving, to the point where he didn't mind killing him, because he thought that was what Guts wanted as well? Did Femto give Casca what she wanted when he raped her?

Yep, that's what I said. Well, I guess I specified that he wanted his dream to remain his ultimate goal all along, and constantly fought back anything inside him that didn't agree.

It's not what you said, look at what I quoted. And what he fought back inside him weren't feelings that didn't agree about his dream being his top priority. He fought back feelings that he thought would hinder him in achieving his dream if he cared about them. For example he refused to let himself care too much about his men dying, but that doesn't mean their safety was ever on the verge of becoming his main objective.

Emotions don't always make sense, that's why they make us do irrational things. I "stick to" that interpretation because I don't let what I "like" blind me to what's actually happening. Also, because I realize that no matter how much Griffith's ideal version of himself doesn't have weaknesses, his human self does, and they are plainly evident in that scene. If this doesn't make sense to you, that's fine by me. As I said before, there's room for many interpretations and the story will mean different things to different people. That is the power of myth, and I believe Berserk's story is timeless enough to be called a myth.

Are you sure you aren't letting what you like blind you to what's actually happening? Because it seems to be the case to me, to the point where you'd agree that your interpretation is confusing, saying you don't like it yourself, but would keep believing in it just so the rest of your "interpretation", based entirely around the belief Griffith desperately wanted hot gay sex with Guts more than anything else, wouldn't fall apart.

Griffith had many weaknesses, that's for sure and I'm the first to say so here (including that he wouldn't have won against Guts in volume 8 if he hadn't been unlucky or whatever), but that doesn't justify any of what you said. As for Berserk being a myth and open to many interpretations, I disagree if that's an excuse for interpreting things in whatever way you like regardless of what's in the manga (not saying this to you in particular but as a general statement).

Umm... riiight, because when he's thinking "but why is it when it comes to him, I always lose my composure?" with a picture of the Zodd battle for a backdrop, he totally means the Vol 8 incident. I would highly suggest re-reading Vol 10 "Infiltrating Windham (1)" before you say that.

When does that happen? After Griffith is imprisoned. Following the incident in volume 8. After his dream is over. I myself suggest that you not only re-read that episode, but also that you pay attention to everything Griffith says in it, and not just the parts that suit you. Besides, the fact remains that had Guts died at that time against Zodd, Griffith's ascension as we know it would have been severely compromised, if not plain unrealizable.

Then again, if you can read the waterfall scene and not grasp that Casca wanted to be more than just a military asset to Griffith, and that Guts stole both her role as closest confidant and sword, I don't know what to tell you.

Casca wanted to be Griffith's woman, not his "confidant". When she realized she couldn't, she decided to be his "sword" instead. Then Guts came along and stole that role from her. That's what her beef with him was all along, from the very beginning. She hated him because Griffith gave him a special treatment, because he was Griffith's right hand man from the get go (you don't even need the waterfall scene to know that, their time together before the hundred men killing makes it all pretty clear). What do you think "sword" refers to, uh? Guts wasn't Griffith's lover, and the reason Casca couldn't be Griffith's woman wasn't because Guts filled that role, it was because of Charlotte. That's what she says herself in that scene. Get things straight.

And that's what it comes down to, I guess. If you think I'm taking every internal monologue Griffith ever had out of context, we don't have much to discuss.

I'm sorry but isolating one sentence out of a paragraph and applying it to a general situation is taking something out of context. However stuff like saying the fact Griffith's dream is his main drive is the reason why you think Guts is his main drive goes even beyond that.

It’s not my style to force people to see things my way. The fact is, you view Berserk through an entirely different bias than I do. For me to try to argue with it, I’d have to go over each chapter one by one which, as you say about my essay, would be a waste of my time.

It would especially be a waste of time because I don't think your arguments would stand. And they're episodes, not chapters.

I also don't think I'm biased. I consider every possibility and every ambiguity, but without occulting one in favor of the other. That Griffith's feelings toward Guts were left purposedly ambiguous by Miura isn't anything new. But to say that those feelings were definitely amatory and ruled his every decision instead of his dream or that Guts wasn't an undeniably crucial military asset, however, is simply not true.

In the end, when Griffith sacrificed the dearest thing he had so that he could achieve his dream (what he always desired the most), he didn't just sacrifice Guts but his whole army. Of which Guts was an extremely important part, but still just a part.

Anyway, argue all you want, this is what forums are for. It's not forcing people to see things differently, just challenging their views. I understand that you might not want to spend time on it though... You've been ignoring chunks of my previous posts already. But just to be game, here's some quick comments, still taken from the first post. Make what you want of them, since they might not even all be from you.

All we know of Griffith's past is that he was born into poverty and lived his whole childhood as an orphan (I can only assume he was because, unlike other character backstories, there was no parental figures mentioned).

We don't know whether he was an orphan or not. In fact we know little about his childhood. I don't think it's a safe assumption you're making here, but even aside from that you shouldn't say we "know" it because it's just not the case.

Griffith strove to be the best and did not tolerate defeat, so while he made sure to drive his superiority home, he was also thrilled at the prospect of sharpening his skills against a worthy opponent.

Moreover, it convinced him that Guts was someone who would not go down easily. In a career with such a high turnover rate, here was someone he could depend on to stick around... someone who was safe to get close to without fear of abandonment through death.

He already knew of Guts' worth before their fight, and I don't think he only saw him as someone who he could get attached to without fear of him dying. Nothings hints at this in the manga.

Griffith hadn’t told anyone else about this mission, yet took the time to explain the reasoning for the assassination to Guts. If he meant for it to stay top secret, wouldn’t he keep those reasons classified, no questions asked?

I don't think that makes much sense. Giving his reasons or not wouldn't have changed much, as Guts could have easily guessed them, and by asking him to assassinate Julius he had already shared the big secret itself. In fact, explaining why he asked him to do so was to his advantage since it didn't seem gratuitous. What Griffith was asking of Guts went far beyond his role as a mercenary. If anyone has to be commended in that situation it's him, as he was very understandable and discarded Griffith's fear that he might disapprove of those methods. None of his other lieutenants would have taken it so easily (or been able to do it anyway).

It is here that the logic of keeping Guts around as a military asset fails completely. The war was over and the only path to claiming his own kingdom was through Princess Charlotte, not Guts. Griffith’s reasons for wanting Guts to stay were 100% personal.

Guts was his number one asset in every way, I don't think anyone can deny that. You talk of the war being over, but that didn't stop Griffith from asking for Guts' help in assassinating the queen. There would have likely been more of those "missions" before he could have claimed the throne for himself. And I'm sure small conflicts would have punctually required his army to go into battle again. Even aside from that, Guts being there would have been reassuring, a guarantee against practically everything. That's also what made him valuable, like I already said. Would have Griffith stayed imprisoned for very long if Guts had been there? I doubt it.

Neiru2012

The truth is he didn't do it for her. Like, not at all. She was saying "no" and he didn't care, and he'd never bothered to give Casca what she wanted before, when she wanted to be his woman or his "sword". It was purely selfish. Your rationale that he did things because he thought others wanted him to has no basis in the story.

Griffith knows how to make and keep people happy, it's as simple as that. He constantly does and says things he knows other people want from him. That's how he charms Charlotte, the nobility, everybody. That's his "nice" way of doing things. When the "nice" way doesn't work, then he stops caring (what people think) and does things by force. Both ways are for himself. He does have genuine feelings towards Guts and Casca, though, it's been shown too much in the manga. Not enough to put them before his dream (though he has trouble doing this with Guts), but enough to care and worry about them as more than property. When he tries dry humping Casca and saw that she didn't want that, he did stop... as much as he could, in any case (not like he could move much). He turned away trembling, which I read as him leaving himself emotionally vulnerable to her rejection. I find it very worriesome that you can read any of the scenes without taking into account that Griffith might have feelings. That is your bias, from my perspective. He doesn't like having feelings, he tries making rational excuses for them, but he still has them. You don't make a distinction between his rationalizations and the emotions that prompt them, but I do.

No I meant after that, in the morning, like I said. Hell, he was pretty spunky with the king given his situation.

I don't think he was spunky at all. He was just apathetic to the King and talked bluntly to him for the first time in his life because he was no longer trying to charm him. He knew nothing he said would change anything. He also had much bigger things on his mind that made the pain and the interrogation meaningless.

Are you sure you aren't letting what you like blind you to what's actually happening? Because it seems to be the case to me, to the point where you'd agree that your interpretation is confusing, saying you don't like it yourself, but would keep believing in it just so the rest of your "interpretation", based entirely around the belief Griffith desperately wanted hot gay sex with Guts more than anything else, wouldn't fall apart.

Yes, I'm very sure. It's only confusing in terms of logic (I was saying it is confusing for you not for me), emotionally it makes perfect sense. And it wouldn't change my "interpretation" at all, by the way. You're taking a very narrow view of what my essay means. It doesn't matter whether Griffith wanted "hot gay sex with Guts" or just felt a very deep, platonic friendship with him. It amounts to the same thing, I just feel that the intensity of emotion Griffith had towards Guts is closer to romantic than platonic. In fact, I'm not saying Griffith snapped because he wanted "hot gay sex with Guts." I'm saying he snapped because he recognized the current situation as similar to the Vol 8 situation, he recognized he was having an emotional reaction to it, and he didn't want Guts to get in the way of his dream again. Guts and Griffith's dream are directly linked and are in opposition to each other. He is affected by Guts' presence. He keeps saying/thinking this again and again. It's hard to miss. Which is why Griffith has such reflexive reactions to it, in order to protect what he wants his first priorities to be: himself and his dream.

I will say again that I don't disagree that Griffith sees his dream as his top priority, even as something that defines who he is as an individual, his purpose in life. If you take that purpose away, he would see it like suicide, and by extension you can say that seeing a future without his dream triggered the suicide attempt. That would just show his despair at the idea of not achieving his dream or his inability to face how far he's fallen, and doesn't affect my (overall) interpretation. Because I don't see his reaction in that scene to be related to Guts AT ALL, whether he's reacting negatively to the vision or to the present. But he did put his dream on hold to recover from prison, and he did react negatively when he realized that he put it on hold and left himself vulnerable to what others think of him, and so he said that he rested too long and hijacked the wagon. Guts triggered THAT action, on top of everything else (humiliation, pity, etc), but not the suicide attempt.

Casca wanted to be Griffith's woman, not his "confidant". When she realized she couldn't, she decided to be his "sword" instead. Then Guts came along and stole that role from her.

I said "confidant" because it seemed obvious to me that you're uncomfortable with the idea that Griffith might like Guts as more than a friend (or more than property, for that matter), and I didn't want to traumatize you further. Because, again, whether Griffith's feelings towards Guts were platonic or romantic doesn't affect my interpretation of Griffith's motivations (Guts-related and otherwise). But now that you bring it up, when Casca said there was no room left by Griffith's side because of Guts, I believe she meant both as a "woman" (ie: love interest) and as a "sword." This is again where the emotional component comes in, one that doesn't always follow logic. Even though Casca's mind knew Charlotte was Griffith's path to kingship, she couldn't just snap her fingers and stop feeling romantically attached to him. This caused her a lot of pain. And no, I don't think she thought of Charlotte as a love interest for Griffith, she knew that was purely a business transaction.

If you're stubborn enough to honestly deny that Guts had any effect on Griffith's pursuit of his dream beyond military assets, I suggest re-reading the Hill of Swords incident, in which Griffith goes out of his way to visit Guts expressedly to "know for certain whether anything will shake my heart" and then prematurely concluding "it seems I am free." Don't tell me you think Guts could've actually affected Neo-Griffith's rise to power as a military asset. Likewise, at the waterfall, when Casca was berating Guts for abandoning Griffith, she didn't mean as a military asset. "A person's heart can't be sustained by ideals and dreams alone! You made Griffith weak!" (Dark Horse) Guts' role with Griffith was much more than just a military asset, it was emotional, moral support. An outlet for him to be himself and not have impossible pressures hanging over his head. Somebody he didn't have to hide his flaws from.

Anyway, argue all you want, this is what forums are for. It's not forcing people to see things differently, just challenging their views. I understand that you might not want to spend time on it though... You've been ignoring chunks of my previous posts already.

I ignored things that I didn't think were relevant to my argument. I also tried to address several things you said at once by quoting only one thing. Not sure if you noticed that.

We don't know whether he was an orphan or not. In fact we know little about his childhood.

Point taken, it was bad wording on my part. I should've left it at "no parental figures were mentioned" and say he grew up on the streets. Doesn't affect argument, though. (These are the kinds of things I ignored from your other posts)

He already knew of Guts' worth before their fight, and I don't think he only saw him as someone who he could get attached to without fear of him dying. Nothings hints at this in the manga.

I think this is very fair speculation based on Griffith's reasons for emotional detachment from his soldiers, which I speculate on based on what you see of his conscience during the Eclipse and his explanation about why he slept with the Baron. Anyway, whether this was a conscious decision for Griffith or not, Guts did prove to be a safe person to get attached to as far survivability goes.

I don't think that makes much sense. Giving his reasons or not wouldn't have changed much, as Guts could have easily guessed them, and by asking him to assassinate Julius he had already shared the big secret itself. In fact, explaining why he asked him to do so was to his advantage since it didn't seem gratuitous. What Griffith was asking of Guts went far beyond his role as a mercenary. If anyone has to be commended in that situation it's him, as he was very understandable and discarded Griffith's fear that he might disapprove of those methods. None of his other lieutenants would have taken it so easily (or been able to do it anyway).

I think the fact that Griffith put an order in the form of a question is significant. I think that he asks Guts to do it also shows trust, even though someone like Judeau is more suited to this kind of job. I find the whole incident hilarious, really. I mean, Griffith couldn't have actually expected Guts to play ninja. Guts is way too big and reckless to pull that off. Instead, I see it as Griffith asking Guts to do this precisely because he knew Guts would end up being seen and massacring half the castle. For example, Griffith didn't ask Guts to kill Julius' kid, but I'm fairly certain he wanted him to. This is kind of related to why I glossed over your critiques of me saying the Foss/Julius pattern was recurring. The entire "Political Intrigue" section of my essay exists mainly to establish Griffith as a relatively "nice guy." That is, one that doesn't go out of his way to be mean and doesn't strike unprovoked. You saying that he did those things twice actually makes him out to be a nicer person than I'm saying, so it works out in my favor. So I left it be.

You talk of the war being over, but that didn't stop Griffith from asking for Guts' help in assassinating the queen. There would have likely been more of those "missions" before he could have claimed the throne for himself.

Point taken, but I really don't think that was Griffith's main concern. I addressed this earlier.

* * * * *

Anyway, I appreciate your perspective and I think you make good points. It's a little disappointing that nobody else has been replying because I really don't like getting entangled in forum tennis matches, but oh well. Something's come up. Noni actually messaged me and we resolved our issue in private, and so I've reconsidered and decided that you could take this thread down after all.

I doubt they will delete this thread. If Neiro doesn't want her essay to be posted then she has the right to ask that it be taken down, since it was stolen off her site and posted here by someone else ( I'm assuming). If Neiro wants to delete all her posts (not sure why she would) she can do that herself. But I doubt the admins will delete the whole thread for no reason.

Not enough to put them before his dream (though he has trouble doing this with Guts)

He never had to choose between Guts (and the others) and his dream before the Eclipse, and we know what he chose. For most of the Golden Age, Guts was an essential part of achieving his dream anyway, not something that was in competition with it.

When he tries dry humping Casca and saw that she didn't want that, he did stop... as much as he could, in any case (not like he could move much). He turned away trembling, which I read as him leaving himself emotionally vulnerable to her rejection.

He turned away trembling? What? You think he was going to kiss her with his helmet on and without a tongue otherwise? You make it sound like he rolled on the side, curled up and cried.

I find it very worriesome that you can read any of the scenes without taking into account that Griffith might have feelings. That is your bias, from my perspective. He doesn't like having feelings, he tries making rational excuses for them, but he still has them. You don't make a distinction between his rationalizations and the emotions that prompt them, but I do.

No, I know he has feelings, but that doesn't mean he humped Casca to make her feel happy. And that's not even Griffith's rationalization but your own. Hell, maybe he was just jealous of Guts. Did you think of that?

I don't think he was spunky at all. He was just apathetic to the King and talked bluntly to him for the first time in his life because he was no longer trying to charm him. He knew nothing he said would change anything. He also had much bigger things on his mind that made the pain and the interrogation meaningless.

I wouldn't be so sure it didn't make things worse for him. He totally destroyed the king with what he said. And I don't think he had "much bigger things" on his mind than being imprisoned and condemned to torture and death.

In fact, I'm not saying Griffith snapped because he wanted "hot gay sex with Guts." I'm saying he snapped because he recognized the current situation as similar to the Vol 8 situation, he recognized he was having an emotional reaction to it, and he didn't want Guts to get in the way of his dream again.

What? How would Guts be in the way of his dream by leaving or staying? His general situation made the realization of his dream pretty much impossible regardless of Guts. But anyway, you sure are seeing a lot of things in one glazy eye... It's paradoxical how you're always talking of emotional reactions but are using a tortuous logic to justify what you're saying, whereas Griffith didn't need a particular reason, given his current situation, what he'd just heard from Wyald, Casca, and everyone else, and what was about to come (supernatural event), to have this vision about his dream. And nothing in the story implies what you're saying, that he reminisced but fought his emotions or whatever. In fact, his reaction to his vision was quite rash and emotional (similar in that regard to his move with Charlotte, but other than that not related to what happened in volume 8 ), which contradicts what you're saying. You're basically saying he snapped because he didn't want to snap.

Guts and Griffith's dream are directly linked and are in opposition to each other.

You don't make much sense here. Guts was crucial to the realization of Griffith's dream, from the time they met up until Griffith's sacrifice. He was at the center of practically every key victory, whether it was a battle or the murder of a rival (Griffith didn't need him to seduce Charlotte, to his credit). Guts never directly opposed Griffith's dream and was never an actual threat to it.

I will say again that I don't disagree that Griffith sees his dream as his top priority, even as something that defines who he is as an individual, his purpose in life. If you take that purpose away, he would see it like suicide, and by extension you can say that seeing a future without his dream triggered the suicide attempt.

I said "confidant" because it seemed obvious to me that you're uncomfortable with the idea that Griffith might like Guts as more than a friend (or more than property, for that matter), and I didn't want to traumatize you further.

Don't bullshit me. You said so because you didn't have the guts to come out and say what you obviously thought, which I and everyone else knew from the start. Maybe because you know there's no actual indication of a sexual desire towards Guts in the story? And it was also a convenient way to deform what Casca actually says regarding why she couldn't be Griffith's woman (Charlotte).

Because, again, whether Griffith's feelings towards Guts were platonic or romantic doesn't affect my interpretation of Griffith's motivations (Guts-related and otherwise). But now that you bring it up, when Casca said there was no room left by Griffith's side, I believe she meant both as a "woman" and as a "sword."

Your whole interpretation is based on your belief his feelings weren't platonic. You were completely occulting Charlotte from the equation in your previous post... So yes, when Casca says that, she means as a "woman" and as a "sword". Because Charlotte is the only woman Griffith will allow himself to have, in order to fulfill his dream, and because Guts was his "sword". Casca wanted to be one thing, then tried to be another thing. Charlotte prevented her from being one thing, and Guts from the other. Guts didn't fill both roles.

This is again where the emotional component comes in, one that doesn't always follow logic. Even though Casca's mind knew Charlotte was Griffith's path to kingship, she couldn't just snap her fingers and stop feeling romantically attached to him. This caused her a lot of pain.

Well she did stop feeling romantically attached to him over time (falling in love with Guts), even though she didn't notice it until it was too late.

If you're stubborn enough to honestly deny that Guts had any effect on Griffith's pursuit of his dream beyond military assets, I suggest re-reading the Hill of Swords incident, in which Griffith goes out of his way to visit Guts expressedly to "know for certain whether anything will shake my heart" and then prematurely concluding "it seems I am free." Don't tell me you think Guts could've actually affected Neo-Griffith's rise to power as a military asset. Likewise, at the waterfall, when Casca was berating Guts for abandoning Griffith, she didn't mean as a military asset. "A person's heart can't be sustained by ideals and dreams alone! You made Griffith weak!" (Dark Horse) Guts' role with Griffith was much more than just a military asset, it was emotional, moral support. An outlet for him to be himself and not have impossible pressures hanging over his head. Somebody he didn't have to hide his flaws from.

Hahaha, really, I think you should stop telling me to re-read things I know better than you do. I'm just saying that amiably but as far as re-reading goes you have no lessons to give to anyone. In any case, I've been saying all along that Guts was a strong supporting element for Griffith, one that took its roots in the fact he was an incredible asset for his dream, but then went beyond that and into the realm of a reassuring presence (or moral support, same thing) that Griffith depended on. I even stated that the idea of Guts leaving made Griffith feel insecure. Please don't make me quote myself. You keep putting words in my mouth: that I don't think Griffith has emotions, that I think Guts was only a military asset, etc. No, Guts was evidently more than just a useful tool, but I disagree with the opposite extreme as well: Guts wasn't just "moral support" either, and definitely not a mere love interest, which is what you tend to reduce him to in your essay. It's completely naive to see things like that, especially when you read what Griffith himself has to say on the matter: "your battles and your death belong to me". Don't forget that he would have killed Guts rather than letting him go. That by his own philosophy, he didn't consider Guts to be his "friend" or his equal.

What you don't get about the scene in volume 8 is that it wasn't just a question of being geographically apart, but of leaving his grasp. Griffith thought he had Guts under his control, that he was in the palm of his hand. He couldn't accept that it would be otherwise. So it makes little sense to relate this to the scene in volume 12 when Casca was telling Guts to leave, because Griffith saw Guts differently then. Anyway, what's most comical about that paragraph is that you're saying all this to defend your misinterpretation of what Casca says at the waterfall (that Guts stole her role as a love interest, which is what you were implying in your last post). And I'm not saying Griffith was truly in love with Charlotte either, just that it's the only romantic relationship he was interested in.

As for Griffith's flaws, I'd like to point out as a side note that Casca knew more on that topic than anyone else, including Griffith himself.

I think this is very fair speculation based on Griffith's reasons for emotional detachment from his soldiers, which I speculate on based on what you see of his conscience during the Eclipse and his explanation about why he slept with the Baron. Anyway, whether this was a conscious decision for Griffith or not, Guts did prove to be a safe person to get attached to as far survivability goes.

I think it has no ground at all, especially not in what Griffith says about it. And really, Guts took far more risks than anyone else, he only survived because he was so skilled. As far as survavibility goes, Casca also proved to be a safe person. Honestly I don't think this has a leg to stand on.

I think the fact that Griffith put an order in the form of a question is significant. I think that he asks Guts to do it also shows trust, even though someone like Judeau is more suited to this kind of job. I find the whole incident hilarious, really. I mean, Griffith couldn't have actually expected Guts to play ninja. Guts is way too big and reckless to pull that off. Instead, I see it as Griffith asking Guts to do this precisely because he knew Guts would end up being seen and massacring half the castle. For example, Griffith didn't ask Guts to kill Julius' kid, but I'm fairly certain he wanted him to. This is kind of related to why I glossed over your critiques of me saying the Foss/Julius pattern was recurring. The entire "Political Intrigue" section of my essay exists mainly to establish Griffith as a relatively "nice guy." That is, one that doesn't go out of his way to be mean and doesn't strike unprovoked. You saying that he did those things twice actually makes him out to be a nicer person than I'm saying, so it works out in my favor. So I left it be.

Man you're hilarious sometimes. I don't know why you put something in your essay or not, I just point out things that don't correspond to the truth. And no offense but I think you left it be because you couldn't argue against me anymore. As for Griffith putting it in the form of a question, the point is that it wasn't part of Guts' attributions in the first place. It was a "dirty" job that Guts could very well have refused to do (and legitimately so). There's a big difference between fighting as a hired man on a battlefield and assassinating politicians. As for why Griffith asked Guts to do it, I think it's largely because he was the most capable of his men, and he knew he could trust him. Guts killed Adonis by mistake and honestly I don't think Griffith could have planned that, especially since Guts probably wouldn't have killed the boy if he'd seen who it was before charging. You're saying Guts is too big and reckless and whatever, but he infiltrated Julius' room without being seen or heard. It was only bad luck that Adonis arrived at the worst possible time, and then his escape had to be messy.

I'd like to apologize to everyone I've lied to... I'm so so sorry, you guys! what I did was gross and absolutely unfair >__<

I have no excuse to justify what I did... except that at that point in my life I was stupidly and pathetically desperate for attention. A lot of suff happened in my life in the past couple of months.. and fortunately, I'm no longer the attention whore I used to be, and I've certainly learned my lesson.

I'd also like to thank Aazealh for giving me another chance (even though I don't deserve it), thank you so much.

EDIT: Oh, and one more thing: I was the one who asked Neiru2012 to delete the thread. It was my idea. But if the other members still want it to stay, then I guess that's okay too.

Trying to provoke me with silly things like that doesn’t work. That’s why I’ve been ignoring your previous attempts and sticking to content. Now I’m starting to think you have issues. Well, this is the internet, so I guess it’s to be expected. I already told you, I’m not looking to change your mind, just share another interpretation. There is no “win” or “lose” here. I do not believe there’s only one way of looking at the story.

Yes, it is different. That you don't care to be exact is your problem, but then expect people to point out your errors.

Except that they're not different. I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks they are. Frankly, your stubbornness in comprehending others' vocabulary baffles me. I will discuss interpretations with you, sure, but they are subjective things. The only things affecting interpretation that can qualify as "errors" are translation, and it is to resolve these that I started posting in the first place (as I say in my first post).

Man you're hilarious sometimes. I don't know why you put something in your essay or not, I just point out things that don't correspond to the truth.

I think I’m starting to see what’s going on here. I’m focusing on the main idea of my interpretation and how I arrived at it, you are nitpicking things at random which often have no effect on it. I want to be very clear on this: I am here to explain my take on Griffith’s personality and motivations. Not how I phrase that Guts won, not if I spell a name Julius or Yurius, not if I call things episodes or chapters, not if I add the word “orphan” and immediately state that it’s an assumption, etc, etc. I ignore those things because I feel they are irrelevant, but I guess you think they are important.

No, I know he has feelings, but that doesn't mean he humped Casca to make her feel happy. And that's not even Griffith's rationalization but your own.

Yes, I am speculating what goes on in Griffith's head. So are you. What’s your point? This is the main thing you don’t seem to be getting. You’re interpreting scenes as much as I am. The difference is I qualify most of my statements with “I think…” or “I believe…” or “…to me” because I am aware of this, and you aren’t. I'm not going to repeat how I said he did this for himself. In fact, I'm not even talking directly to you anymore. I'm replying to your points, sure, but not for your sake. You've already shown that you have no interest in understanding other perspectives.

Hahaha, really, I think you should stop telling me to re-read things I know better than you do. I'm just saying that amiably but as far as re-reading goes you have no lessons to give to anyone.

Thank you for proving my point. You have your own perspective, one that seems shallow and heartless to me, and that's fine. I'm replying so others can understand mine, see if it makes sense to them, and take from it what they will. So, henceforth, if I refer to a part of the manga, I just invite anyone else who is curious to see where I'm coming from.

I wouldn't be so sure it didn't make things worse for him. He totally destroyed the king with what he said. And I don't think he had "much bigger things" on his mind than being imprisoned and condemned to torture and death.

No, he destroyed the King with what he already did. Anything on top of that wouldn't affect his sentence. Well, I do think he had much bigger things on his mind, such as the person he cared about the most in the world abandoning him and his dream appearing to be over. Griffith doesn't appear react much to physical pain (as shown by interrogation scene and later torture scene), it is emotional pain that affects him the most. He tries to remain detached, but if you get through his walls, he's really very sensitive.

For most of the Golden Age, Guts was an essential part of achieving his dream anyway, not something that was in competition with it.

Oh but he was. It's not obvious at first, least of all to Griffith, but that's what the entire prison internal monologue is about. Not "how did my property defeat me and run away?" but his realization that Guts had stopped being in his grasp a long time ago: "Why is it when it comes to him, I always lose my composure? ... Out of so many thousands of comrades and tends of thousands of enemies, why just him? How long ago did someone I was supposed to have in hand instead gain such a strong hold on me?" (Dark Horse) He then goes on to admit that "As he shines so glaring within me, the junk (castle) grows dull." He admits to himself that Guts was outshining his dream at that point. He admits he did not risk his life to save Guts from Zodd just because he was such a great military asset, and he admits that he had allowed himself to get so attached to Guts that it made him act irrationally and landed him in prison. He had acted irrationally about Guts before, threatening his dream each time, the only difference was this time it had consequences. So, it was a fine line. Guts was an invaluable military asset towards achieving his dream, but he was also an emotional distraction/attachment that threatened it and made Griffith "weak" (as Casca would put it).

How would Guts be in the way of his dream by leaving or staying? His general situation made the realization of his dream pretty much impossible regardless of Guts.

Guts was a distraction - an emotional distraction: a liability, a weakness, a trigger. Griffith didn't run away because he thought he could achieve his dream, especially on his own. It was an irrational, emotional act. Another attempt at reclaiming his owld self. A self-affirming coping mechanism which drove him until being dumped in a lake with broken bones put it out.

It's paradoxical how you're always talking of emotional reactions but are using a tortuous logic to justify what you're saying, whereas Griffith didn't need a particular reason, given his current situation, what he'd just heard from Wyald, Casca, and everyone else, and what was about to come (supernatural event), to have this vision about his dream. And nothing in the story implies what you're saying, that he reminisced but fought his emotions or whatever. In fact, his reaction to his vision was quite rash and emotional.

I called it a reflex, actually. I think we already discussed this scene to death previously, so I have nothing terribly new to add, except to restate something in plainer terms. This is a manga, not a scientific experiment. It's a lot harder to say "if this follows that, it just means they're correlated, it doesn't show a cause-and-effect relationship," because that manga was drawn by someone who had a vested interest in laying out scenes to maximize emotional impact and direct cause-effect relationships. I invite people to look at the end of "Warriors of Twilight" and the beginning of "Back Alley Boy" and see for themselves where the graphical emphasis lies. Casca telling Guts to leave is repeated twice (ie: it's significant), and it zeroes in on Griffith both times. The size of his iris and pupils change in reaction to this, there's even a close up of it. Then you have his reaction "interrupted" by the first vision. It is my interpretation that this vision is either a coping mechanism triggered by Griffith's emotional inability to deal with abandonment again (ie: putting the focus back onto himself and his dream), or that the spike of despair made him open to visions sent by God Hand. In both cases, yes, his reaction to the vision is rash and emotional because it is what he desperately wants. He was stretched to his limit one way so he rubber-banded the other way.

Don't bullshit me. You said so because you didn't have the guts to come out and say what you obviously thought, which I and everyone else knew from the start. Maybe because you know there's no actual indication of a sexual desire towards Guts in the story?

LOL

"I THINK GRIFFITH LOVES GUTS AS MORE THAN A FRIEND!!! I WILL SHOUT THIS FROM THE ROOFTOPS!!! RAAAWWRR!!"

Happy? I never tried to hide it. It's stated plainly in the warnings of my essay. Griffith thinking about Guts during every sexual encounter with a female notwithstanding, sure, there is no actual indication of a "sexual desire" toward Guts in the story, which is why I don't focus on "sexual desire" in my essay. What I do focus on is that Griffith's feelings towards Guts were abnormally intense, and at times overwhelmed what he knew was best for himself. Platonic? Romantic? Take it as you will. Frankly, I don't think sex and emotion go together in Griffith's head, it's just another tool to progress him on his path. But I don't associate sexual orientation with sex. I just associate it with who you're romantically attracted to. Sex does not need to happen to validate this attraction. Even "asexual" people feel romantic attraction, the desire for an emotionally/spiritually intimate companion, even if they don't feel a sex drive. And this feeling is different than the feeling they have towards other friends. I say in the essay that Griffith himself didn't know what he was feeling, or even that he was feeling it, until Guts left. Then it hit him hard (after which he had a long time to think about it in prison). Both before and after prison, he was also too confused by what he was feeling to know what to do about it or how to express it.

No, Guts was evidently more than just a useful tool, but I disagree with the opposite extreme as well: Guts wasn't just "moral support" either, and definitely not a mere love interest, which is what you tend to reduce him to in your essay.

I see it as a promotion, actually, which is why your use of "mere" confuses me. To me, "love interest" signifies a deeper, more intense relationship.

It's completely naive to see things like that, especially when you read what Griffith himself has to say on the matter: "your battles and your death belong to me". Don't forget that he would have killed Guts rather than letting him go. That by his own philosophy, he didn't consider Guts to be his "friend" or his equal.

Griffith has trouble following his own philosophies. Or, rather, what he thinks and what he feels don't always coincide. His head was the last to know that his heart already acknowledged Guts as an equal for quite some time. The beauty of the Berserk story is that you actually see this relationship develop. It starts out as property and evolves into a powerful emotional bond. It starts out with Griffith having the upper hand, and shows its progression until their roles ultimately switch. Griffith knew right away that Guts was special, he just didn't know how special until much later. I would even say he didn't realize the full extent of what Guts meant to him until their last moments on the God Hand altar. The whole Guts leaving in Vol 8 scene triggered a whole torrent of emotions that he likewise didn't know how to deal with. Mostly out of desperation that the person he cared about most in the world was abandoning him. He was hurt, and he wanted to lash out at what he perceived as the source of that pain. So he reverted to the only way he knew how to deal with things out of his control: by force. "If I can't have him, no one can." In every sense of the phrase. That's just the kind of person Griffith is. He doesn't exactly subscribe to the idea "if you love somebody set them free."

I think it does when people contort the story so that it fits their beliefs.

It doesn't change the story. Fine, I’ll try it this way. Please explain how interpreting Griffith’s strong emotional attachment to Guts as romantic instead of platonic changes the story.

I gotta say, though, I won't be posting nearly as often because I do have College and finals are coming up. Griffith is very important to me, but with the way this thread is going (nowhere), I hope I can keep my priorities straight.

Except that they're not different. I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks they are.

Well then you're wrong. You said Griffith wanted his dream to be his top priority, I said it was. You're implying it wasn't. It's not that I don't understand your vocabulary, it's just that you're not expressing yourself properly. Or, more exactly, you're using that excuse to avoid admitting you were originally saying something else. It's not the only case either, so far your "interpretation" has changed in several points since the beginning, but you won't say so.

I will discuss interpretations with you, sure, but they are subjective things. The only things affecting interpretation that can qualify as "errors" are translation, and it is to resolve these that I started posting in the first place (as I say in my first post).

No. People can misinterpret something, in which case they are wrong. This weak excuse that everything's possible doesn't hold much water, and never did. It's always been the last recourse of people that have no ground to back up what they say.

I think I’m starting to see what’s going on here. I’m focusing on the main idea of my interpretation and how I arrived at it, you are nitpicking things at random which often have no effect on it. I want to be very clear on this: I am here to explain my take on Griffith’s personality and motivations. Not how I phrase that Guts won, not if I spell a name Julius or Yurius, not if I call things episodes or chapters, not if I add the word “orphan” and immediately state that it’s an assumption, etc, etc. I ignore those things because I feel they are irrelevant, but I guess you think they are important.

Hehehe, it's like a text-book case really. From the beginning I stated that your essay or whatever you want to call it contained inaccuracies. I pointed out a few to demonstrate what I meant, but insisted that I didn't mean to argue with you about it. However you chose to argue against my points, which pretty clearly means to me that you disagreed with what I said. Now that you've seen you couldn't really argue against what I pointed out, you've changed your angle so that you never meant to disagree with what I said, only it was all irrelevant to your own nebulous, never-mentioned-before general point. So, what's your point? That Griffith had emotions and was sad that his dream crumbled? That he's not a typical bad guy? That he had a special relationship with Guts? Because not only is this painfully obvious and agreed on by everybody, but you haven't actually made a point of this so far.

Anyway, it sounds like everything you can't back up ends up not mattering to you, but are you in fact complaining that I am helping you ameliorating your essay? Or would you rather have people telling you it's all perfect when it isn't? Yes, small errors are important when you pretend to analyse something, and yes, approximation leads to errors in the end. And inaccuracies can easily lead to plain old misinterpretation down the line. Your lack of rigor doesn't suit the opinion you seem to have of your essay.

The difference is I qualify most of my statements with “I think…” or “I believe…” or “…to me” because I am aware of this, and you aren’t.

No, that isn't true. Again, a text-book defense from someone whose assertions have no ground. When I assume something, I qualify it as such. You don't necessarily do so yourself. If you're going to use ad hominem arguments, at least make sure they have a basis in reality.

I'm not going to repeat how I said he did this for himself. In fact, I'm not even talking directly to you anymore. I'm replying to your points, sure, but not for your sake. You've already shown that you have no interest in understanding other perspectives.

So in short you aren't going to address this point. Ok. As for understanding other perspectives, "understanding" doesn't mean "agreeing with", and I don't agree with you on this. Sorry if that upsets you.

Thank you for proving my point. You have your own perspective, one that seems shallow and heartless to me, and that's fine. I'm replying so others can understand mine, see if it makes sense to them, and take from it what they will. So, henceforth, if I refer to a part of the manga, I just invite anyone else who is curious to see where I'm coming from.

Ahhh, more ad hominem arguments to defend your previous display of arrogance, brilliant. Yes, the reason I myself am posting in this thread to begin with is so that lurkers will have another take on the matter. Don't think I'm determined to convince you of anything, because I really am not. I only challenge claims that I find dubious so that people will not be mistaken about them.

On a side note, I find it funny that you would respond to something by saying it proves your response correct.

Umm yes, and that doesn't add up. He could've had Casca any time he wanted but he showed no interest in her that way (ie: she was not a distraction and did not make him irrational or weak).

I don't see how that changes the fact he could have been jealous. It's not just about sex but affection as well. Casca loved him before, now she loves Guts. That sort of stuff. After all, he did rape her not long after, as Femto. And it was a way to get back at Guts, to hurt him.

No, he destroyed the King with what he already did. Anything on top of that wouldn't affect his sentence.

Uhh, that's not what the scene shows us. The king melts down during the talk. Once again, you're assuming things without having any basis for it. We don't know what we would happened had Griffith kept silent, but we know the reaction what he said provoked.

Well, I do think he had much bigger things on his mind, such as the person he cared about the most in the world abandoning him and his dream appearing to be over.

A belief with no basis in the manga. At the time, his incoming death sentence, which meant the end of his dream, was the only thing he had to think about. We don't see him thinking about Guts. And your wording here ("abandoning") really says it all about how you consider Guts' role. That he defeated him, that Griffith, who thought he had control over Guts' life, and in fact the one depending on him, matters not to you because you reduce it to lovers breaking up. It boggles the mind.

Griffith doesn't appear react much to physical pain (as shown by interrogation scene and later torture scene), it is emotional pain that affects him the most. He tries to remain detached, but if you get through his walls, he's really very sensitive.

Ohhh, poor Griffy is so fragile and sensitive. You do see him react to physical pain (especially when he's hit in the face), even though he's tough and takes it silently. He's a warrior, after all. He wasn't going to cry and beg his "enemy" to stop. But when the king whips him, Griffith is clearly in pain, he's not made of stone. Do I have to post pictures of this? Seriously...

Oh but he was. It's not obvious at first, least of all to Griffith, but that's what the entire prison internal monologue is about. Not "how did my property defeat me and run away?" but his realization that Guts had stopped being in his grasp a long time ago: "Why is it when it comes to him, I always lose my composure? ... Out of so many thousands of comrades and tends of thousands of enemies, why just him? How long ago did someone I was supposed to have in hand instead gain such a strong hold on me?" (Dark Horse)

No, the prison monologue isn't about Guts opposing Griffith's dream. Look at the pictures in that scene. When saying "how long ago", it's Guts and Griffith talking after the conspiracy against him failed. This is really relevant here. And the same goes for the line itself. Griffith says Guts had a strong hold on him, not that he opposed his dream.

He then goes on to admit that "As he shines so glaring within me, the junk (castle) grows dull." He admits to himself that Guts was outshining his dream at that point.

At that very specific point. Again, the context is very important. Being imprisoned, his dream being over (and the castle now being merely "junk", as he keeps saying), all of it because of (to him, in his delusion) one man. What more natural than to obsess over him? This one point, this all time low is what he will later blame Guts for, and what will help him decide to sacrifice all of his men. You can't make a generalization of his feelings at that particular time and apply it to their whole relationship.

He admits he did not risk his life to save Guts from Zodd just because he was such a great military asset

He doesn't actually admit that. He just says he loses his composure. And that's while he's imprisoned and thinking irrationally, from his own admission. Obsessing over Guts more and more. Furthermore, that's after his defeat at Guts' hands, which changed a whole deal in Griffith's life and triggered said obsession.

He had acted irrationally about Guts before, threatening his dream each time, the only difference was this time it had consequences.

Not really. Like I said earlier, Guts was necessary to the dream anyway. Griffith took risks that were worth it. When Guts was alone against Zodd and Griffith came to the rescue with reinforcements, the dream wasn't threatened more than it already was at the time. Only Casca would think otherwise then, and that's because she was in denial regarding Guts' importance. Sounds like you're also denying how important Guts was to Griffith's dream here, despite admitting it right below.

So, it was a fine line. Guts was an invaluable military asset towards achieving his dream, but he was also an emotional distraction/attachment that threatened it and made Griffith "weak" (as Casca would put it).

Yes, it's a fine line. But Guts still didn't threaten Griffith's dream. When Casca says Guts made Griffith weak, she means when he left, and that's only because Guts' presence made Griffith stronger in the first place. Griffith needed his "sword", you understand? The reason it's such a big issue to her is because that's what she was trying to be. It's obvious if you put the line back in its context, when she says Guts fucked them all up by leaving, all that stuff.

If you're trying to use Casca's line to argue that Guts made Griffith weak by being around him in general then you're deeply mistaken about its meaning.

Guts was a distraction - an emotional distraction: a liability, a weakness, a trigger.

I repeat: his general situation made realizing his dream impossible, regardless of Guts. You speak as if everything was an unchanging constant. And yet, coming back to it, there's simply nothing implying it directly.

Griffith didn't run away because he thought he could achieve his dream, especially on his own.

Now you're directly contradicting the story. Whether he acted irrationally or not isn't the question. He fled because of the dream. And he was well inspired to, right? Because he did get what he wanted on his own. He sacrificed his army and received the power he needed for himself.

This is a manga, not a scientific experiment. It's a lot harder to say "if this follows that, it just means they're correlated, it doesn't show a cause-and-effect relationship," because that manga was drawn by someone who had a vested interest in laying out scenes to maximize emotional impact and direct cause-effect relationships.

The author has a vested interest in showing things that are happening instead of not even remotely hinting at something so that people can maybe more or less interpret it from a single panel. In any case this argument doesn't have any real authority, nor does it affect the reason Griffith had his vision.

Griffith thinking about Guts during every sexual encounter with a female notwithstanding, sure, there is no actual indication of a "sexual desire" toward Guts in the story, which is why I don't focus on "sexual desire" in my essay.

No, there isn't indeed. And Griffith didn't have too many sexual encounters in the story either. The one time he did it with Charlotte, the events of the day were heavy on his heart (they were the reason he did it in the first place), but that's not to say he wanted to have sex with Guts. I find it funny you imply the opposite, though. Curious that the perspicacious Judo couldn't see it, nor Casca, nor Guts himself, nor anyone else. Makes you wonder why Griffith didn't hug Guts like he threw himself on Casca, or why, if it came down to this, Femto raped Casca and not Guts. It would have been as damaging to him, considering his past. Not to mention the fact Miura made light of this issue very early in the story, by having Guts ask Griffith if he was a "homo". But I'm sure you have half-assed rationalizations for it all. Like you said yourself, no doubt the few people who will read this thread will be able to distinguish the truth from a fangirl's fantasy.

In the case of the fight against Zodd, losing the battle and his master asset was not best for him. We're shown that he was criticized for the resistance Zodd opposed afterwards, but that having still taken the castle and won the day saved him from harsher criticism.

I say in the essay that Griffith himself didn't know what he was feeling, or even that he was feeling it, until Guts left. Then it hit him hard (after which he had a long time to think about it in prison). Both before and after prison, he was also too confused by what he was feeling to know what to do about it or how to express it.

Maybe because he didn't really feel it until it happened? Until his world was turned upside down? And then, as his dream was disappearing, the one event that had changed everything stuck out. The one person who beat him, who made him fail, the one who he believed was responsible for everything. There's one thing you're not taking into account here though, and it's Griffith's mental health. He was losing it at that time, and he comments on it himself. That his reflexion at that particular time, when he was at his worst and close to delirium, isn't present otherwise (before or after) shows that it should be taken with a grain of salt and with consideration to the circumstances. Keeping in mind when, where and why it's taking place. That peculiar context, far from making these feelings "truer" and more reliable, make them less reliable, because they directly result from Griffith's terrible situation. They are, like you would say so well yourself, a coping mechanism against what he's enduring. What allows him to stay alive. Not to mention that right after, he has a vision of the God Hand. How fitting.

I see it as a promotion, actually, which is why your use of "mere" confuses me. To me, "love interest" signifies a deeper, more intense relationship.

Guts' role in the Band of the Falcon, and in Griffith's dream in general was more important than that of being a mere love interest. I don't know what's confusing about this. It is reductive to perceive Guts as mainly being just that.

His head was the last to know that his heart already acknowledged Guts as an equal for quite some time.

Who says he viewed him as an equal? Even if he cared for him, nothing implies that he considered him an equal before he was defeated. Your "heart" and "head" allegory can't eclipse that. Really, the extent to which Griffith was mortified is due in a large part to the fact he didn't consider Guts his equal at all.

It doesn't change the story. Fine, I’ll try it this way. Please explain how interpreting Griffith’s strong emotional attachment to Guts as romantic instead of platonic changes the story.

Well look at your posts. You're justifying your contradictory interpretation of certains events with assumptions of what Griffith thinks or feels, though they're not expressly indicated in the story. All of this based on one belief.

Neiru2012

Well then you're wrong. You said Griffith wanted his dream to be his top priority, I said it was. You're implying it wasn't. It's not that I don't understand your vocabulary, it's just that you're not expressing yourself properly. Or, more exactly, you're using that excuse to avoid admitting you were originally saying something else. It's not the only case either, so far your "interpretation" has changed in several points since the beginning, but you won't say so.

Ah, I thought you referring to me clarifying what I meant by saying Griffith wanted to be an "idea" instead of a "person." My interpretation has not changed. Are you sure you're not confusing this with me trying to relate to your perspective? I can do that, you know. Not necessarily take your perspective, but I can view the same scene from several different angles and see all of them as valid. In fact, I have multiple interpretations for many scenes for myself. It was pretty hard trying to fit as many of them into the essay as possible.

Very rarely, actually. This is a story and, yes, it is an abstract painting. You can't interview characters to get a play by play of what they are thinking and feeling at the time. The only thing you can do is speculate based on given information. Many interpretations can be drawn from this. They can contradict each other, but they don't necessarily contradict the story.

From the beginning I stated that your essay or whatever you want to call it contained inaccuracies. I pointed out a few to demonstrate what I meant, but insisted that I didn't mean to argue with you about it. However you chose to argue against my points, which pretty clearly means to me that you disagreed with what I pointed out.

I agreed with quite a number of "inaccuracies," and those that I felt were not inaccuracies I explained how I arrived at.

Now that you've seen you couldn't really argue against what I pointed out, you've changed your angle so that you never meant to disagree with what I said, only it was all irrelevant to your own nebulous, never mentioned before general point. So, what's your point?

Couldn't argue against your points? *wonders if we're reading the same thread* No, I disagree with plenty of what you say, I just don't mind it if you have a different interpretation than I do. I didn't spell out my points because they are stated in my essay. I guess I should have, though, since you keep reminding me you haven't read it. So I shall quote my stated purpose of the essay:

"how did things go so horribly wrong?? Extraordinary tragedies require extraordinary circumstances. Was Griffith always a demon masquerading as an angel? Or was he simply... human? This essay attempts to answer that question by tracing back the events that led to his ultimate decision."

"I don’t expect anyone to condone what he did, but I do hope you could sympathize with why he did it. He did not just flippantly choose to become Femto for the hell of it. This was the most compelling case for turning to the Dark Side that I have ever seen"

"It’s not that Griffith didn’t care about others, he just cared about himself more. When it came to Guts, he sometimes cared about himself less."

"Who among you have something in your lives that you feel so strongly about, you would do anything for it? Who exist not for your own sake, but as an embodiment of an idea? Whose purity of heart is enough to overcome any obstacle? It is people like this who make or break the world. But how far would you go? How far should you go? At what point do the ends not justify the means? And, perhaps scariest of all, at what point does protecting yourself and your dream actually destroy who you are?"

"Griffith’s relationship with Guts was different from any he ever felt before. It changed him and made him act irrationally."

And, overall, that Griffith was a nice guy. He's had bad things happen to him which triggered a horrible sequence of events that brought out his more desperate side, but his actions then were not designed to portray him as evil, only human (as Slan says). I think the hatred that the majority of the Berserk fanbase has for Griffith, who call him pure evil from the start, cheapens the power of the story. I don't think it was Miura's intent to walk us through every agonizing step of his downfall and have us sympathize with his downfall just to have that sympathy turn into rabid hatred later. I think those that say he sacrificed everyone he cared about on a whim ignore the complexity of his character. That the mask of detachment he puts on is very fragile, and that he actually is very sensitive when it comes down to it. This is the reason I think a lot of people don't appreciate exactly how much influence Guts had on Griffith and his dream, least of all why.

Of course you don't think you are, but you are, lol. Everybody is. You saying you're not doesn't make it so. You disagreeing with me doesn't make you any more right than me disagreeing with you. That's what it means to not be Miura. This isn't an excuse, it's fact.

Yes, the reason I myself am posting in this thread to begin with is so that lurkers will have another take on the matter. Don't think I'm determined to convince you of anything, because I really am not. I only challenge claims that I find dubious so that people will not be mistaken about them.

I don't see how that changes the fact he could have been jealous. It's not just about sex but affection. Casca loved him before, now she loves Guts. That sort of stuff. After all, he did rape her not long after, as Femto. And it was a way to get back at Guts, to hurt him.

This argument can just as easily be used to support the interpretation that Griffith was jealous of Casca and was trying to sabotage her relationship with Guts. Personally, I don't think that's what he was doing (I already explained what I think he was doing), but it's as good an explanation as any. But I definitely say that Femto raped Casca to hurt Guts, not because he wanted Casca. That scene supports the shounen-ai interpretation a lot more than saying he was jealous of Guts. And no, I don't think him raping Guts would've cause Guts nearly as much pain, and not get his point across. I say in the essay that this scene can even be interpreted as Femto's way of making friends. He saw that Guts had threatened his dream, so he answered by attacking what Guts held dearest, in this way (by his own definition) acknowledging Guts as an equal and an adversary.

Uhh, that's not what the scene shows us. The king melts down during the talk. Once again, you're assuming things without having any basis for it. We don't know what we would happened had Griffith kept silent, but we know the reaction what he said provoked.

Yes, it is speculation. Griffith was already emotionally broken at the time (based on the bedroom crying scene which shows he was not all better), and the King was already pissed off. The reaction Griffith provoked was purely corporeal punishment, I don't see how it affected his sentence. Yes, he was in physical pain, but he didn't care as much as he did for everything else, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't stop talking.

A belief with no basis in the manga. At the time, his incoming death sentence, which meant the end of his dream, was the only thing he had to think about. We don't see him thinking about Guts. And your wording here ("abandoning") really says it all about how you consider Guts' role. That he defeated him, that Griffith, who thought he had control over Guts' life, and in fact the one depending on him, matters not to you because you reduce it to lovers breaking up.

I still find it disturbing... very, very disturbing that you think saying Griffith was attracted to Guts as more than a friend reduces Guts' role somehow. I have never said that the only reason Griffith recruited Guts into his army was because he had a crush on him (or to be his sex slave, as you seem to be implying). I am saying Griffith's relationship with Guts was all of the above, that is, everything you're saying and more on top of it. It grew into a friendship, and then grew into something deeper than that which Griffith himself had trouble understanding. I am also not saying that the latter feeling was mutual. Guts did not feel the same way about Griffith that Griffith felt about Guts. I do not "reduce" the Vol 8 scene to "lovers breaking up." I just layer it with stronger degrees of emotion than you do, emotions whose intensity better explain how badly Griffith reacted to what Guts did. It is just more believable to me that Griffith's tears, emotions, and actions afterwards stem from personal feelings, not practical ones. And how he thinks about Guts right afterwards and much later make me believe that losing a fight (something he never even mentions, btw) or losing property was the last thing on his mind compared to how he lost control over himself when it came to Guts. Not in terms of reliance on him in battle, but on a personal, emotional level. His memories of this tipping point did not go back simply to Griffith asking Guts' approval after assassinating the Queen, but all the way back to Zodd. And if you think that Griffith stopped thinking about Guts' leaving by the time he was being interrogated, you're the one cheapening their relationship.

Again, the context is very important. Being imprisoned, his dream being over (and the castle now being merely "junk", as he keeps saying), all of it because of (to him, in his delusion) one man. What more natural than to obsess over him? This one point, this all time low is what he will later blame Guts for, and what will help him decide to sacrifice all of his men.

(On "merely") You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ^^;; (Couldn't resist Princess Bride reference)

Yes, the context is very important. The entire 7 page monologue that leads up to that line is very important. If you read it, you'd see that Griffith does not refer to the castle as "junk" to diminish its importance, but as the ultimate version of the "many sparkling junk spoils" he play-fought with other kids over, his "most sacred piece of junk." "I made up my mind that the junk I would get for myself would be that [castle]." The wording of what shines brightest in one's mind is also used in several places between Guts and Griffith, and Griffith and his dream, throughout the manga to denote what's most important. He's blaming Guts for his imprisonment, not because Guts defeated him or ran away, but because he obscured his dream and made him do stupid things. He is saying that the castle grows dull specifically because Guts is outshining it. And speaking of the Eclipse, that's also what the whole iconic 5-page "you're the only one who made me forget my dream" was about.

He doesn't actually admit that. He just says he loses his composure. And that's while he's imprisoned and thinking irrationally, from his own admission. Obsessing over Guts more and more. Furthermore, that's after his defeat at Guts' hands, which changed a whole deal in Griffith's life and triggered said obsession.

Nope, didn't trigger it, was already there, scene shows this. Also, by his own admission, he is not thinking irrationally. Yes, he says he's unsure about many things except one, and that one thing is quite vivid. He also proceeds to think about it in a very clear, coherent manner.

Not really. Like I said earlier, Guts was necessary to the dream anyway. Griffith took risks that were worth it. When Guts was alone against Zodd and Griffith came to the rescue with reinforcements, the dream wasn't threatened more than it already was at the time. Only Casca would think otherwise then, and that's because she was in denial regarding Guts' importance.

I feel Casca should defend herself in this case, especially after you say she knows Griffith better than he knows himself earlier. So, Zodd-Casca, meet future-Casca:

"You know, I couldn't stand it. You got Griffith to say that to you so easily... I envied you. But, even so, I tried to convince myself that Griffith wanted you just for your strength. But Griffith, so calm and composed, always gets impulsive when it comes to you!! It's as if... As if... (finish the sentence, woman!! >.<) ...Griffith relies on you, you know? And yet you're selfish. You just run off, not thinking of consequences. What I can't forgive is that selfishness of yours! The fact that you've almost gotten Griffith killed!! ... I won't let you take Griffith's dream down with you!! You're the one... who changed Griffith that way. Why is it... why... why does it have to be you...... why..." (Vol 7, "Prepared for Death")

Yep, she admits she was jealous of Guts before, and she also admits that she tried to tell herself that Griffith was only acting impulsively only because he needed Guts' strength, but this wasn't true. Guts had changed Griffith in profound ways beyond rational, practical considerations and was indeed threatening his dream. And when Casca later talks about Guts making Griffith weak, I think it's clear this is what she means. This is the role she was jealous of.

His eyes change size from a few pages back (both iris and pupil), and emphasis is given to this. They become smaller, as he is apt to do when scared or in shock. Even the vision asks him "what do you fear in this place?" in response to this.

Makes you wonder why Griffith didn't hug Guts like he threw himself on Casca

Griffith's body language showed much deeper feelings for Guts than trying to dry-hump him. I don't associate sex with depth of emotion (incidentally, neither does Griffith). Guts is the only thing he responds to during the prison rescue, first by trying to choke him (one extreme of caring/hurt/blame). But when Guts hugs him and starts sobbing, you can see Griffith virtually melt with a resurgence of warmth. Instead of choking him he held his hand. If Griffith was only hurt because Guts defeated him or destroyed his dream, I don't think Griffith would react this way. I think he was responding directly to the degree of emotion Guts was showing. He was relieved that Guts came back for him and was able to shed tears for him. Guts still cared, and somehow this made Griffith's year-long grudge at him go away, if only for that moment. It is a very powerful, touching scene for me. He forgave Guts for abandoning him. Which is why when it came to his attention that Guts had planned to leave later, you get the line "I'll never again forgive you" at the lake (or, if you prefer, "I'll never again with you" by Dark Horse... I'll leave what that means to your imagination ). The only way I can get that line to make sense is if Griffith forgave Guts before, and would not do so again (pretty literal, if you ask me O.o). But I'm curious, how DO you interpret that line if you say Guts had no influence on Griffith's actions at that point whatsoever?

Who says he viewed him as an equal? Even if he cared for him, nothing implies that he considered him an equal before he was defeated. Your "heart" and "head" allegory can't eclipse that. Really, the extent to which Griffith was mortified is due in a large part to the fact he didn't consider Guts his equal at all.

First of all, I think the idea that saying Griffith snapped because he was defeated not only insults Griffith's complexity as a character, but also doesn't do any justice to the depth of his relationship with Guts. Second of all, and I say this in reply to every other instance that you accuse me of speculating, YES I AM SPECULATING. I'm tired of repeating this. Speculation is not a flaw but the purpose of my essay, it is also the basis of all interpretation beyond describing ink gradients. I explain what I base my speculation on both in the essay and in my replies to you. My explanations not making sense to you proves as much as yours not making sense to me (nothing). I don't understand why this is such a hard concept for you. The only thing we can conclude in that case is that we disagree, since neither of our interpretations change what happened in the story.

Well look at your posts. You're justifying your contradictory interpretation of certains events with assumptions of what Griffith thinks or feels, though they're not expressly indicated in the story. All of this based on one belief.

*looks at posts* My posts don't change the story. That's my point. You can interpret the story any number of ways and not change the story. I interpret it in the way that makes the most believable sense to me.

« Last Edit: April 28, 2009, 10:06:27 PM by Neiru2012 »

Logged

Xem

I figured I'd pop my head in here seeing as how I've been lurking from time to time and you've mentioned how you'd like to see some other people's opinion, Neiru. Let it be known though, I don't have much to add at the moment, you guys have pretty much covered all the bases of Griffith's character up to him becoming Femto.... if not having added a few bases of your own as well.

Quote

And, overall, that Griffith was a nice guy. He's had bad things happen to him which triggered a horrible sequence of events that brought out his more desperate side, but his actions then were not designed to portray him as evil, only human (as Slan says). I think the hatred that the majority of the Berserk fanbase has for Griffith, who call him pure evil from the start, cheapens the power of the story. I don't think it was Miura's intent to walk us through every agonizing step of his downfall and have us sympathize with his downfall just to have that sympathy turn into rabid hatred later. I think those that say he sacrificed everyone he cared about on a whim ignore the complexity of his character. That the mask of detachment he puts on is very fragile, and that he actually is very sensitive when it comes down to it.

This seemed odd to me, not that I don't agree with a nice portion of it.

During my first time going through the Golden Age I was actually really excited and hoped that I'd be able to see Griffith succeed and become King, he seemed like the lad for the job and it felt like he'd be a great leader for Midland. At one point after the eclipse I even debated with my buddies how I felt at the time of the eclipse that the BotH were actually willing to be killed for Griffith's dream and it wasn't all that bad that he did that, save for Guts' anyway. It wasn't until I read back through the story a few times that I developed the perspective that there was nothing okay about what happened there. I wanted what Griffith did to be forgivable so that maybe the story could sorta go back to the good ol' days. It was a really confusing and emotional event for me.

We don't all hate Griffith right out of the gate, basically.

.........

In regards to Guts' and Griffith's relationship, I've always seen it more of a deep brotherly bond, and not so much a romantic attraction. As far as we know Guts had never really had a friend his entire life until he met Griffith, and something similar was true for Griffith; though for different reasons. Add that on top of the fact that their personalities and goals were so incredibly different that they simply couldn't help (and still can't, I believe) be forever fascinated by each other.

I don't think one of them had deeper feelings than the other at all, at least I never interpreted it that way. Guts didn't have a dream, nor ever saw the need for one, he simply survived because that's his nature. Griffith is almost the polar opposite of this. In his view of the world, without a dream there's no point in living. The dynamic Mr. Miura created with this is amazing, almost Shakespearean to me. Maybe better?

It wasn't until I read back through the story a few times that I developed the perspective that there was nothing okay about what happened there. I wanted what Griffith did to be forgivable so that maybe the story could sorta go back to the good ol' days. It was a really confusing and emotional event for me.

We don't all hate Griffith right out of the gate, basically.

I'm sorry for implying that you all hate Griffith out of the gate. That's just my own bitterness talking. I've seen some very nasty things said about Griffith on Berserk boards, which is why I avoid posting on them. It makes me sad, because I do sympathize with Griffith the most. That's not to say that what he did was okay, or that I don't sympathize with Guts and Casca and the Hawks, but I just developed the strongest link to Griffith as a character. It was a very confusing and emotional event for me, as well. It took me a long time to come to terms with it. That's actually why I wrote the essay (to help myself understand/come to terms with it). I think what happened to Griffith would break anyone. I don't think anyone can honestly know what they would do/choose in his position, and I think his decision can remind us of our own weakness (although it could also be seen as a strength).

But the most important thing I take away from what he did is what it says about the price of dreams. I have dreams too. They might be something as innocent as healing the planet or protecting animals, but how far would I be willing to go to see them done? How many hearts would I be willing to trample on for what I consider the higher good? Those are the questions important to me, and those are the lessons Griffith teaches. I weigh what Griffith did against how much more good it gave him the power to do as the world's elected Savior (whether he actually delivers or not is yet to be seen). Would that be worth it? I really don't know. It certainly gives me much to think about, though.

In regards to Guts' and Griffith's relationship, I've always seen it more of a deep brotherly bond, and not so much a romantic attraction. As far as we know Guts had never really had a friend his entire life until he met Griffith, and something similar was true for Griffith; though for different reasons. Add that on top of the fact that their personalities and goals were so incredibly different that they simply couldn't help (and still can't, I believe) be forever fascinated by each other.

Ah, I thought you referring to me clarifying what I meant by saying Griffith wanted to be an "idea" instead of a "person."

Oh but don't worry, that's different too, and what I said applies to it as well if not even more so. Saying Griffith wanted to be an "idea" instead of a "person" has no basis at all in the story, as I pointed out. And it's not the same thing than saying his dream was his ultimate goal. I don't think more needs to be said about this. It's just a random groundless assertion you made, get over it.

I can do that, you know. Not necessarily take your perspective, but I can view the same scene from several different angles and see all of them as valid. In fact, I have multiple interpretations for many scenes for myself. It was pretty hard trying to fit as many of them into the essay as possible.

That's good to know. However it is not too common that scenes can be validly interpreted in several different ways in Berserk within the context of the story. More often than not, enough information is provided that the author's intent is too clear to allow that.

Very rarely, actually. This is a story and, yes, it is an abstract painting.

No, I'm sorry but you're wrong and you know it. First off, people do misinterpret things and when they do they are wrong. Whatever the cause is, it's happened often enough and isn't very rare. Second, Berserk isn't an "abstract painting", no matter how you think of it. Making nonsensical assertions will not get you anywhere. Much of the story is well-defined and made unambiguous by Miura, so that you can't make it say whatever you want.

You can't interview characters to get a play by play of what they are thinking and feeling at the time. The only thing you can do is speculate based on given information. Many interpretations can be drawn from this. They can contradict each other, but they don't necessarily contradict the story.

An interview wouldn't be reliable. What we are given is an objective view of the characters' actions and thoughts. It's far superior information, really. Something that doesn't need a play-by-play. And it's absolute, too. Not relative. Not something you can debate. Those aren't real people but characters, so the author has the final word on the matter. And most of the time, speculation isn't necessary to understand what's going on. It's not very flattering to imply it is, honestly. While different interpretations don't necessarily contradict what we can see in the story, in this case, some do. I've been pointing them out.

I didn't spell out my points because they are stated in my essay. I guess I should have, though, since you keep reminding me you haven't read it. So I shall quote my stated purpose of the essay:

I'm terribly sorry to tell you this, but that doesn't address the points I mentioned earlier at all. So as expected, you're now telling me your general point is just that Griffith's story is compelling and complicated and that he's not just purely evil for the sake of it? Ok, but that's really obvious, like I said in my previous post. And nobody disagreed with that. In fact I never even mentioned it. Why bring it into this argument? It's not really related. That your overall goal is humble, simple and based on valid impressions doesn't excuse the fact there are inaccuracies in how you analyze the story.

Here's an example: I can say the sky is blue, and that's correct. But if I say it's because there are midgets living in the clouds that paint it everyday, I'm full of shit. Yet the sky is blue, anyway. Does that justify a ridiculous reasoning? Nope.

Hahaha, that's laying it on really thick there. Griffith wasn't an innocent angel, he was a warrior and he killed people in cold blood, or ordered them killed without a second-thought. It's not his "purity of heart" that overcome obstacles but his talent, his determination and his ruthless ambition (and luck as well). Seriously, that line sounds like something out of Sailor Moon.

I think the hatred that the majority of the Berserk fanbase has for Griffith, who call him pure evil from the start, cheapens the power of the story.

Now, no offense but you're really talking out of your ass here. I've actually seen very few people over the years that called Griffith "pure evil" while he was still human (but then again, I don't pay attention to YouTube comments, maybe this explains that). Even those that "hate" him for what he eventually did to Guts and Casca as Femto usually recognize the circumstances surrounding his life. It sounds to me like you're inventing yourself stupid opponents in order to better argue against their misconceptions, but the truth is no such people exist on this forum, or if they do they keep quiet and they're well inspired to. I see this as a pure waste of time, only distracting us from the matters at hand. I don't like this kind of attitude (making sweeping generalizations about other fans) and I kindly ask you not to do that anymore in the future.

Of course you don't think you are, but you are, lol. Everybody is. You saying you're not doesn't make it so. You disagreeing with me doesn't make you any more right than me disagreeing with you. That's what it means to not be Miura. This isn't an excuse, it's fact.

I'm not speculating on what goes on inside Griffith's head, I simply read what we know of it in the manga. And I do not misconstrue what I read. Indeed, simply stating something doesn't mean it's true, and that applies to you as well as to anybody else. I'm not right because I disagree with you but because what I say is based on what's in the manga and not on what I wish was in it. That is fact.

This argument can just as easily be used to support the interpretation that Griffith was jealous of Casca and was trying to sabotage her relationship with Guts. Personally, I don't think that's what he was doing (I already explained what I think he was doing), but it's as good an explanation as any.

Griffith perceived Guts as the one who struck him down, not Casca. Guts was the one he was obsessed with in prison. Not to mention how Casca previously idolized him. So no, I wouldn't say that it's "as good an explanation as any".

And no, I don't think him raping Guts would've cause Guts nearly as much pain, and not get his point across.

Well that's not something you have any way of asserting for sure, and from Guts' past experiences and the trauma they left, we know how much distress it could cause him. I don't think you can argue against this. In any case it didn't happen, and that was my point.

I say in the essay that this scene can even be interpreted as Femto's way of making friends. He saw that Guts had threatened his dream, so he answered by attacking what Guts held dearest, in this way (by his own definition) acknowledging Guts as an equal and an adversary.

Hahaha, are you serious? This completely ridiculous. Griffith thought Guts had made him forget his dream, not that he had threatened it. And he was Femto then, not exactly the same person anymore. Infused with evil. Besides, Griffith's old idea of a friend being someone with his own dream and that would oppose him if it came to defending it doesn't fit the situation at all. Guts didn't have a dream and raping Casca was opposing said non-existent dream. It was a petty revenge on the two of them. You're deluding yourself if you think there was any kind of grand reflexion on Femto's side. And he certainly didn't see Guts as an equal then, less than ever in fact. See what he has to say on that matter in volume 3.

The reaction Griffith provoked was purely corporeal punishment, I don't see how it affected his sentence.

The king pronounced the sentence at the end of their talk, so it's not like the talk didn't affect what he decided at the time, especially since it infuriated him so much that he violently unleashed himself on Griffith, and was in such a state that he scared the guards. I find it pretty pointless to try to say otherwise. Weren't you the one talking about cause and effect earlier, uh? Not to mention that right after this happened, the king tried to rape Charlotte. Don't you see any correlation with the talk they had?

Yes, he was in physical pain, but he didn't care as much as he did for everything else, as evidenced by the fact that he didn't stop talking.

That doesn't evidence anything, other than the fact he wasn't the kind to back down. And we weren't talking about how physical pain was what he cared about, but about his situation. The end of his dream and his death to come. You were trying to argue he had Guts on his mind, which, as I've said several times now, is not implied anywhere in the story.

I still find it disturbing... very, very disturbing that you think saying Griffith was attracted to Guts as more than a friend reduces Guts' role somehow. I have never said that the only reason Griffith recruited Guts into his army was because he had a crush on him (or to be his sex slave, as you seem to be implying).

Don't put words into my mouth, that won't bail you out of anything. What I'm saying is that you do not acknowledge the shock that being defeated by Guts was for Griffith. That you think it was a sentimental break up. And that this point of view is very reductive.

I do not "reduce" the Vol 8 scene to "lovers breaking up." I just layer it with stronger degrees of emotion than you do, emotions whose intensity better explain how badly Griffith reacted to what Guts did.

Emotions aren't the point. Not at all. I never said Griffith didn't feel strongly about all this, that he was emotionless or something, so again please stop putting words in my mouth. What I'm telling you is that it wasn't just a matter of Griffith being heartbroken because his boyfriend left. Please don't be obtuse on purpose, it's getting old.

And how he thinks about Guts right afterwards and much later make me believe that losing a fight (something he never even mentions, btw) or losing property was the last thing on his mind compared to how he lost control over himself when it came to Guts.

If you think losing that fight against Guts wasn't a big deal to him, then let me sincerely tell you that you don't understand the character's psychology. And that's precisely been my point so far, that losing that particular fight totally broke him down.

His memories of this tipping point did not go back simply to Griffith asking Guts' approval after assassinating the Queen, but all the way back to Zodd.

What his memories go back to isn't in question, I was talking about what panel goes with what line. There's no particularly strong reason to assume the fight against Zodd was a tipping point in their relationship, and the lines each panel corresponds to in his monologue do not support that idea. Regardless, the fact remains that it all comes from this one defeat at Guts' hands. He wouldn't have had this reflexion had that not happened.

And if you think that Griffith stopped thinking about Guts' leaving by the time he was being interrogated, you're the one cheapening their relationship.

What I'm saying is that Griffith didn't always think about Guts at all times, and that nothing shows he was thinking about him at that specific time. You said "he had much bigger things on his mind that made the pain and the interrogation meaningless" and I don't think there's any basis in the manga to affirm that was the case.

If you read it, you'd see that Griffith does not refer to the castle as "junk" to diminish its importance, but as the ultimate version of the "many sparkling junk spoils" he play-fought with other kids over, his "most sacred piece of junk." "I made up my mind that the junk I would get for myself would be that [castle]."

But the fact he uses that vocabulary at that time is important. He doesn't refer to his dream as such before that scene, and it's revealing.

He's blaming Guts for his imprisonment, not because Guts defeated him or ran away, but because he obscured his dream and made him do stupid things.

Hahaha no. How can you say this? He blames Guts for everything. His imprisonment, his defeat, his reaction, everything. And when he says that, Guts is outshining his dream THEN. In the prison. Right at that very moment. That's when it happens, when Guts shines so brightly that the castle dulls. When he's the only thing that keeps him alive. Griffith is not talking about the past but the present. That's what you don't get. I don't understand how you can be mistaken about this.

He is saying that the castle grows dull specifically because Guts is outshining it. And speaking of the Eclipse, that's also what the whole iconic 5-page "you're the only one who made me forget my dream" was about.

No, the scene doesn't show it. You're mistaken about this whole deal. While Griffith cared about Guts before, his obsession took place in the prison and was subsequent to his defeat, then his imprisonment.

Also, by his own admission, he is not thinking irrationally. Yes, he says he's unsure about many things except one, and that one thing is quite vivid. He also proceeds to think about it in a very clear, coherent manner.

That doesn't change the fact he wonders if he's not going mad. It's not a statement that denies what comes before it, so "by his own admission"... No. Not to mention that he's unable to see the truth about Guts: that it was his right to leave and that he himself overreacted. That he has only himself to blame for his current situation. And then specters come out of the wall and the God Hand talks to him.

she also admits that she tried to tell herself that Griffith was only acting impulsively only because he needed Guts' strength, but this wasn't true. Guts had changed Griffith in profound ways beyond rational, practical considerations and was indeed threatening his dream.

You're once more overlooking the context. Casca was talking about her desire to be Griffith's sword then. Saying Guts took that from her. And yes, she blames him because Griffith took the risk to get men and investigate the castle after Guts went in alone. She's no different in that regard from what she felt in volume 5, and that's precisely why I said she was in denial. Jealous of him and of his importance. Not willing to accept what she would later, in volume 9, at last. That Guts wasn't just an asset, he was Griffith's best asset. The most important person in his army. Someone he relied on. Someone he couldn't afford to lose. "His sword".

And when Casca later talks about Guts making Griffith weak, I think it's clear this is what she means.

Well you think wrong. That's not what she means. She means when Guts left. She says so specifically. That whole part of her talk is about him leaving. About how Griffith couldn't do anything without him. And the one and only scene we're shown as she says so, is that of Griffith kneeling after his defeat.

His eyes change size from a few pages back (both iris and pupil), and emphasis is given to this.

Hahaha, what are you talking about. There's no clear shot of his eyes on any page before that one, you see one from the side and can't make anything out precisely. And it's in a different episode. Emphasis is given on this? No. If Miura wanted to emphasize his eyes dilating, we'd see two close shots of them. Or we'd see the shock in Griffith's reaction. Miura's quite good at showing emotions, and in that panel, Griffith shows none.

It's not contradictory at all in the world of intense emotion. I already explained my basis for interpreting it in this way.

You explained nothing other than saying you thought it was that way. That Griffith in his clarity of mind recognized he was having an emotional reaction, so he had an emotional reaction instead in order not to have one. None of which is shown in the manga, of course. "It's not contradictory in the world of intense emotion"? What the hell... It's contradictory, period.

If Griffith was only hurt because Guts defeated him or destroyed his dream, I don't think Griffith would react this way.

Guts was the one thing keeping him alive during that time in jail. Griffith obviously had mixed emotions about him, and that until the sacrifice. But he definitely blamed Guts for eclipsing his dream during his time in jail (hello, this is what he thinks of as he sacrifices his men), and his defeat in volume 8 was very difficult for him to bear. It's hardly something you can disagree with. He didn't even look up as Guts went away and Casca called after him. Just remained on his knees, shocked.

Which is why when it came to his attention that Guts had planned to leave later, you get the line "I'll never again forgive you" at the lake (or, if you prefer, "I'll never again with you" by Dark Horse... I'll leave what that means to your imagination ). The only way I can get that line to make sense is if Griffith forgave Guts before, and would not do so again (pretty literal, if you ask me O.o). But I'm curious, how DO you interpret that line if you say Guts had no influence on Griffith's actions at that point whatsoever?

If you're going to quote a line, at least make sure you get it right. What he originally said in YA was: "I'll never be able to forgive you again". Literally meaning he was able to do so, but if Guts touched him then, he would never be able to anymore. And even then, you shouldn't focus on the word "again" in the sentence, because the way it's used in Japanese in this case is to say "never" (yes, there's only one word in the original Japanese line). "Again" can be added or removed in the sentence without affecting it since it's "never" that matters; that's what the word means here. People added "again" because it's usually the primary meaning of the word and doesn't change the overall meaning of the line, but in a case like this it becomes confusing in English, as we're shown here. So basically, don't think much of it.

Now anyway Miura changed that line and removed the verb, leaving it only partial. It wasn't just to hide the meaning but to leave it open to interpretation. The reason Dark Horse translated the line like that is because of how Japanese is written. The verb is missing, so that doesn't translate very well to English. What it says literally is "I'll never... you". It could mean tons of things, really. I find it quite funny that one of the few parts of the manga that is actually very clearly left open to interpretation would end up being the one you can only think of as meaning one very specific thing.

As for what I think of Guts' influence on Griffith's actions, again, please don't put words into my mouth. I'm saying nothing shows he ran off specifically because Casca told Guts it'd be better if he left as opposed to doing so as a result of his general situation. That doesn't mean Guts didn't matter at all. Like I said before, Griffith wanted least of all their pity, and his in particular. You were telling me that Griffith was shocked because Guts would abandon him again and whatnot, but in this scene, when Griffith says that, Guts isn't leaving, he's rushing towards him with concern on his face. What Griffith thinks and feels then has nothing to do with the possibility of Guts leaving him. Nothing at all. It's just that in his depressing situation, Griffith couldn't take that concern and that pity. Not from him.

First of all, I think the idea that saying Griffith snapped because he was defeated not only insults Griffith's complexity as a character, but also doesn't do any justice to the depth of his relationship with Guts.

How is that related to what you're quoting at all? Griffith didn't consider Guts his equal at the time. He specifically reflects on this during his monologue in prison. That someone he thought was in his hand like everyone else wasn't, and instead had power over him. And it's their duel and his defeat that made him realize that.

*looks at posts* My posts don't change the story. That's my point. You can interpret the story any number of ways and not change the story. I interpret it in the way that makes the most believable sense to me.

Your posts do not faithfully describe what happens in the manga. And your ideas are based on those incorrect descriptions or interpretations or whatever.

I think what happened to Griffith would break anyone. I don't think anyone can honestly know what they would do/choose in his position, and I think his decision can remind us of our own weakness (although it could also be seen as a strength).

I don't think it shows strength to take the easy way out. Griffith's not the one that ended up with the bad end of the stick. Anyway, it doesn't matter much whether what happened to him would break someone else. His entire life was engineered specifically so that he would be broken by the events he endured. He never stood a chance, because his personality and his life were designed by a higher entity so that he'd choose to sacrifice. That's the vicious part. The reason he could rise so high in the first place was only so that he'd fall low enough to take their offer. And we can easily guess that it's the same for the other members of the God Hand. They each had their own trials and ordeals, carefully crafted specifically for them so that they would become what they are. The Idea of Evil sure is... evil.

Neiru2012

This thread is 276KB of text, which is 276,000 characters; 48,232 words, and more than 124 pages in Microsoft Word, single spaced.

By God Hand, you’re right. This is getting ridiculous. I could’ve spent that same amount of effort doing much more constructive things, like correcting translation, expanding the essay, writing a book, or even studying.

That's good to know. However it is not too common that scenes can be validly interpreted in several different ways in Berserk within the context of the story. More often than not, enough information is provided that the author's intent is too clear to allow that.

This is a fundamental philosophical disagreement we have. We can spend hours debating interpretation and, at the end of the day, if the interpretation doesn’t conflict with the plot (and no, you have not shown that mine conflicts with the plot), it amounts to nothing. It is an inherently subjective thing. The only conclusion we could draw is if we agree or disagree and go on our merry way. But, if the goal is to challenge interpretation, the only way to do that is to show that what it’s based on is inaccurate, the most significant of which is translation. Translation directly affects interpretation, so I came here to resolve that issue. My interpretation rests heavily on lines from “Precious Thing,” and I will have to take a look at the Dark Horse version very closely to see if it affects anything.

I am convinced that the Dark Horse translation is more accurate, so I will change my quotes to theirs (except things like “I’ll never be able to forgive you (again)” and “Millennium Falcon” which I know to be accurate) and make changes to my commentary if the interpretation is affected. I will also consider retracting my assumption that Griffith’s assassination plots weren’t recurring patterns after all since this reflects positively on his character. Or maybe I’ll keep the assumption and explain more clearly that/why it is an assumption. The stated orphan assumption will probably stay until proven otherwise, since it doesn’t affect the plot as far as I can tell.

You said yourself that the relationship between Griffith and Guts is “ambiguous.” Meaning, it can be interpreted either way. Any number of ways, in fact. The important thing is that the emotional bond was very strong, and what that means is for every reader to decide. I choose the extreme of one-sided romantic interest because the intensity and irrationality of Griffith’s reactions make the most sense to me that way. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with interpreting it as a very deep platonic bond. The effect is nearly the same. I do think there’s plenty wrong with interpreting it as property, but that doesn’t mean you can’t see it that way.

I'm terribly sorry to tell you this, but that doesn't address the points I mentioned earlier at all. So as expected, you're now telling me your general point is just that Griffith's story is compelling and complicated and that he's not just purely evil for the sake of it? Ok, but that's really obvious, like I said in my previous post. And nobody disagreed with that. In fact I never even mentioned it. Why bring it into this argument? It's not really related.

You asked me to state the purpose of the essay. I did. Sorry if it's not as controversial as you thought it was. I never meant it to be. I didn't make this thread and I didn't come here to argue. I came here to clarify translation issues, like I explained in my first post. You started commenting on things, so I commented back explaining how I arrived at them, and it became a discussion that to me was about Griffith's personality and motivations. That's all.

Hahaha, that's laying it on really thick there. Griffith wasn't an innocent angel, he was a warrior and he killed people in cold blood, or ordered them killed without a second-thought. It's not his "purity of heart" that overcome obstacles but his talent, his determination and his ruthless ambition (and luck as well).

Again with the definitions. You can be pure "good" or pure "evil." You can be pure anything. The purity I was referring to is his dedication to his dream.

Right after this happened, the king tried to rape Charlotte. Don't you see any correlation with the talk they had?

(Already addressed the rest in previous post) I do see a correlation with that, yes, but I think the King would've done that anyway. It's not like Griffith told him something he didn't already know, it's not like he wasn't already jealous or curious.

He blames Guts for everything. His imprisonment, his defeat, his reaction, everything. And when he says that, Guts is outshining his dream THEN. In the prison. Right at that very moment. That's when it happens, when Guts shines so brightly that the castle dulls. When he's the only thing that keeps him alive. Griffith is not talking about the past but the present. That's what you don't get. I don't understand how you can be mistaken about this.

I don't understand how you can be mistaken about it either, c'est la vie. And yes, he blames Guts for everything, and that everything boils down to him doing stupid things because of the effect Guts has on him.

That Griffith in his clarity of mind recognized he was having an emotional reaction, so he had an emotional reaction instead in order not to have one. None of which is shown in the manga, of course. "It's not contradictory in the world of intense emotion"? What the hell... It's contradictory, period.

What he originally said in YA was: "I'll never be able to forgive you again". Literally meaning he was able to do so, but if Guts touched him then, he would never be able to anymore. And even then, you shouldn't focus on the word "again" in the sentence, because the way it's used in Japanese in this case is to say "never" (yes, there's only one word in the original Japanese line). "Again" can be added or removed in the sentence without affecting it since it's "never" that matters; that's what the word means here. People added "again" because it's usually the primary meaning of the word and doesn't change the overall meaning of the line, but in a case like this it becomes confusing in English, as we're shown here.

vanheat

I could’ve spent that same amount of effort doing much more constructive things, like correcting translation, expanding the essay

Um. Isn't this helping your essay.

I pity the fool that tries to read all of these posts from the very beginning. That would be cool if you could see the amount of hits this topic gets per day. Cause I noticed this thread has over 2000 views but when I view I might only have one guest also viewing it.

I always hear some of the weirdest stuff when it comes to Griffith, and especially his relationship with Guts. But I guess they are the two characters we've been around the most.

at the end of the day, if the interpretation doesn’t conflict with the plot (and no, you have not shown that mine conflicts with the plot)

I think I did show that it conflicts with the plot in several points, as stated in previous posts. Now obviously if you limit your responses to telling me that I haven't shown anything, there's not much left for us to do.

But, if the goal is to challenge interpretation, the only way to do that is to show that what it’s based on is inaccurate, the most significant of which is translation.

Well I've been pointing out inaccuracies all along, haven't I? As for translations, well no translation can perfectly carry over the original meaning. However by using Dark Horse's volumes you would avoid at least 90% of the problems you'd encounter otherwise.

You said yourself that the relationship between Griffith and Guts is “ambiguous.” Meaning, it can be interpreted either way. Any number of ways, in fact. The important thing is that the emotional bond was very strong, and what that means is for every reader to decide. I choose the extreme of one-sided romantic interest because the intensity and irrationality of Griffith’s reactions make the most sense to me that way.

I said the author left it ambiguous on purpose, yes. That we cannot define the exact nature of Griffith's feelings with absolute certainty at some points. However, that doesn't mean there's anything in the manga that implies one particular extreme is likely. Nothing does. And that doesn't mean people can make up anything they want about it either.

You asked me to state the purpose of the essay. I did. Sorry if it's not as controversial as you thought it was. I never meant it to be.

You were telling me that what I said didn't affect your general point and that it was all that mattered to you as an excuse to dismiss my remarks. So I questioned the general point in question and how it related to the discussion. As my previous posts show, I did not expect it to be controversial at all, quite the contrary.

Again with the definitions. You can be pure "good" or pure "evil." You can be pure anything. The purity I was referring to is his dedication to his dream.

When people say of someone that he's "pure of heart", they don't mean purely evil. You know it's a Christian expression, right? In that case "purity" refers to being free from sin or moral wrong. To not know evil. Even in the unlikely case where you didn't mean it that way, you should expect readers to take it as such.

I do see a correlation with that, yes, but I think the King would've done that anyway. It's not like Griffith told him something he didn't already know, it's not like he wasn't already jealous or curious.

Considering his reaction, he pretty clearly didn't want to hear that, and hated hearing it. It's an ugly truth he had hidden deep inside himself and probably didn't want to face. He hadn't tried something of the sort before as far as know, so I don't think there's a strong basis to say that he would have done it anyway. All we know is that Griffith's words immediately provoked an extreme reaction accompanied by a strong denial, and that an odious act followed right after that perfectly matched what Griffith had said.

I don't understand how you can be mistaken about it either, c'est la vie. And yes, he blames Guts for everything, and that everything boils down to him doing stupid things because of the effect Guts has on him.

The difference being that I am not, in fact, mistaken. That I am basing what I say on what's in the manga. Without misinterpreting it. You say he did stupid things (as if it happened plenty of times when it's definitely not the case, let this be noted) because of Guts, but you forget to mention it's Guts' actions. And Guts' superiority when Griffith saw him as someone in his control. Please, do not reply to small portions of what I say while ignoring the rest, it makes me repeat myself uselessly.

I think it is the same context, since it once again has her referring to Griffith doing stupid things because of his bond with Guts. I don't think her opinion on this changed.

Well despite what you think it's not the same context, since it's before/after Griffith's fall and her one year leading the Band of the Falcon in dire times, before/after she falls in love with Guts and many more things. Her outlook on things changed between those times. For one thing, she recognized that Griffith truly needed Guts.

You trying to convince anyone of this stuff about the "world of intense emotions" making your contradictory reasoning logical is about equivalent to trying to cut through a block of granite with your teeth.

Neiru2012

It really isn’t. I mean, the translation notes are useful, but we already settled that Dark Horse is better, I have acquired a new place to cross-reference, and there’s a separate sub-forum for questioning particular lines. The rest is just a disagreement over interpretation, and as interesting as that was, I think Aazealh and I reached the point where we have to either agree to disagree or drive each other crazy with repetition. The way I see it, there’s enough material posted from both sides for others to make up their own minds, and that’s all anyone can hope to accomplish.

That's a shame because Aazealh is really just trying to help by showing the parts that conflict with the actual story and therefore showing you how you could improve your theory. I think one of the problems here is ego. I understand that you're very proud of your interpretation because it's what you want to believe happened in the story, but Aazealh isn't an evil mastermind come to tear you or how you want Berserk to be down. He's probably just trying to help you understand the errors in your interpretation so that you, and anyone who is reading this, can understand Berserk better and therefore see the beauty of what Berserk really is and not what one wishes it was.

Quote

interpretation

I'm glad to see this word. I think one of the major problems was we were using the word "speculation" instead of "interpretation." Speculation, on this board at least, comes with the assumption that it's based on Berserk and is logical, story-wise, in that it doesn't contradict the story and makes sense. Whereas interpretation is a more open term that relies less on facts and more on how a person feels about someone or something.

I can interpret Berserk as one big piece of propaganda meant to subconsciously show people that homosexuality is good and heterosexuality is a punishable sin. I can find a lot more evidence for that interpretation than most people can for their "speculations." And that's fine if I wish to believe that to be true. But it's not true. And if I were to try to pass it off as speculation or how Berserk is supposed to be read than the least I expect is for someone who loves the story more than me and is much more educated in it to correct me.

I.. really don't think it had anything to do with 'ego', per say, when it comes Neiru2012's interpretation of the story.

She admitted more than once that it was just; an interpretation. She didn't try to shove it down people's throats, and she acknowledged more than once that it was NOT the only valid way to view the story. It was simply the only way that made sense to HER.

I don't personally agree that Griffith was sexually attracted to Guts (and apparently, neither does Neiru2012). He DID love him.. absolutely. Arguing whither his feelings were more platonic or not is irrelevant, and frankly unnecessary. Griffith loved Guts, it's as simple as that, but I can definitely see why would somebody view Griffith's intense and passinoat feelings for Guts as somehow 'romantic', for the lack of a better word.

I gatta say, I really enjoyed reading this debate. It was fantastic, and I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with some of Neiru2012's and Aazealh's points. Nontheless, I gained a lot of knowledge and I'm thankful for that.

I.. really don't think it had anything to do with 'ego', per say, when it comes Neiru2012's interpretation of the story.

While I appreciate the time you've taken to type out your reply, I think you've misread my previous post. My statement wasn't in reference to Neiru2012's interpretation of the story at all. It was in reference to this thread itself.

Quote

She admitted more than once that it was just; an interpretation. She didn't try to shove it down people's throats, and she acknowledged more than once that it was NOT the only valid way to view the story. It was simply the only way that made sense to HER.

Yes, she has admitted it's an interpretation. And yes, she has said that anyone can believe Berserk is anything they wish it to be. And yes, she has said that it's only meant for her own use.

I understand what she has said, but I suppose I come from the "actions speak louder than words" generation. If she truly believed what she wrote, we wouldn't have the majority of this thread. In fact, it probably would've ended with the revelation that you stole her work and called it your own. If I believed it was just my interpretation, it wasn't the only way to view the story, and it was the only way that made sense to me, would I have replied to Aazealh's correction of my interpretation in the first place? Wouldn't I have just shrugged it off as the interpretations of another and been done with it? Wouldn't I not care if someone read my interpretation and took something away from it? But the point of writing that wasn't mean to give us a glimpse into Neiru's mindset, was it?

Hmm guys, I'm not sure it's going to be very productive to argue about an argument. So with that in mind, I think I'm going to lock the thread, provided that no one wants to comment on the essay anymore, and ask you to take your discussion to PMs. If neiru2012 feels like it I'm sure she'll make her own threads in the future.

I don't personally agree that Griffith was sexually attracted to Guts (and apparently, neither does Neiru2012). He DID love him.. absolutely. Arguing whither his feelings were more platonic or not is irrelevant, and frankly unnecessary. Griffith loved Guts, it's as simple as that, but I can definitely see why would somebody view Griffith's intense and passinoat feelings for Guts as somehow 'romantic', for the lack of a better word.

Just one last remark: the word "love" can be subject to debate actually, since it's not used to qualify that relationship in the story and has different definitions of various intensities in English. You can love someone as a friend, or like a brother, or romantically, etc. In fact we've had several long discussions about this in the past, check them out if you're interested. Believe me, people love arguing about this stuff. What it comes down to in the end is that Griffith felt strongly about Guts. Exactly how strongly he felt, or what the nature of said feelings was is not made known to us.